First things first...unless you miss it!

Take a look at this youtube video covering the topic of natural born citizenry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI&feature=player_embedded

Does this not raise a point that everyone must observe and digest, no matter their position on the political bell curve?

If we start budging on minor issues like this (the severity of the offense depends on who you ask!), where does it end?

An interesting issue for discussion.

Why has Obama spent so much to divert focus from his lack of a legitimate birth certificate?

Should this matter?

I believe it does. A President should be a child of American citizens. I say this until the powers that be change the Constitution. Follow the law of the land.

Troublesome...

I always try to see both sides of an issue, but the potential appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the supreme court scares the hell out of me. Before I even get to the woman's credentials, I hear a comment like this:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

This statement is blatantly racist. It's logic rests solely on the arbitrary characteristic that is the color of a person's skin. More to the point, It's just plain stupid. Downright idiotic. And our President wants this lady to have a say in interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America?

Everyone is doing this, but it is a useful excersize. What if I said, "A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black man who hasn't lived that life."

Game over. Nite Nite. Black listed (excuse the pun).

It's point blank ignorant. And we haven't even touched upon her legal perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

Maybe you didn't mean to say it, but you did, lady.

The Founding Fathers that you claim, Sonia, are heroes of yours would turn over in their graves if they could hear you make such flippant remarks about the system they set in motion so many years ago.

Congress makes the law. The judicial system interprets it. It's pretty cut and dry and something we all learn in middle school (or maybe the second time around in high school).

Sam Stein from the huffingtonpost.com says it's not that simple these days:

"But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.

'She's not wrong,' said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. 'Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.'"

At this point, we run into a divide. Your position on this topic depends on your stance regarding the Supreme Court's role in the process. How far does determining the laws set forth in our Constitution go? Past mere interpretation? Sonia think so. So does Mr. Segal.

By clarifying the law, they are interpreting it. It may sound like semantics, but that is not making it. There's one guy who would stand next to me:

"One single object ... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825

You may disagree with me, but one thing that should abhor anyone of any background is that a Supreme Court Justice, with the ultimate power of interpreting our most sacred document, would let personal experiences enter into their decision making process. That is NOT acceptable.

What scares me even more is that someone nominated this lady. But then again, should it surprise anyone?

http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441

NOPE.

One last thing. Check out this court decision:

In New York Times Co. v. Tasini (1997), freelance journalists sued the New York Times Company for copyright infringement for the New York Times' inclusion in an electronic archival database (LexisNexis) the work of freelancers it had published. Sotomayor ruled that the publisher had the right to license the freelancer's work. This decision was reversed on appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the reversal; two dissenters (John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer) took Sotomayor's position.

Sotomayor thinks that someone's hard work belongs to someone else, and not solely to the creator of that article. Sound like socialism to anyone else? Too far? I'm on the fence.

I'm not on the fence about keeping this lady out of that chair.

Last Word...

"Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it" - Thomas Sowell


First off, I would like to state that I found this course on Race, Gender and the Media to be thought provoking, if, at times, redundant. It was a great concern of mine that the recurring themes of the class, or the repetitive mention of inequality and the need for enlightened perspectives, would leave some students in the class jaded, having the opposite affect intended, planting cynical seeds. I don't think this happened upon visiting with classmates. Being slightly older than the other individuals enrolled in the course, it was interesting to observe the way younger members of my generation view race and gender. The subject matter is mercurial and at times explosive, but it was rarely combative, with members of different races and genders having intense but open discussions on the state of our world and the media that covers it.


As for the media, I think the above quote hits the nail on the head. The media, whether it be papers, web-sites, advertisements (especially), or television programming, is out to generate revenue. It goes hand in hand with our capitalist roots. Of course, the fourth estate's job is to keep an eye on the government and other agencies that serve the general public, but it wouldn't be able to do so without making that ever important dollar (look at all the papers closing down recently). If it would make a company more money to advertise a product in a particular way, they would most certainly do it and not think twice about it. The system of free enterprise we subscribe to may be grounded in greed (which has recently provided some nice setbacks in the form of asshole Wall Street types), but it has allowed more people of lower class to raise up and gain wealth and success than any other system yet enacted in the history of the world. Some minor government regulation is necessary to avoid the issues mentioned previously, but that's another conversation for another time. What is key is that it simply isn't about color, gender or ethnicity: it boils down to socioeconomic status. That is how people are racked and stacked (of all colors). Yet, there is always a chance through hard work and ingenuity to rise above where you started:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A


What Milton Friedman just said is so simple, many won't allow it. They may very well be called Liberals. So, while we lauded the election of our first black president this past November, did we really help the people who are down in the dumps (as I've stated, color isn't involved)? By creating bigger government, aren't we providing a patchwork solution? I digress, but it is fitting!

Socially, I feel that each generation is becoming more accepting of the "other", as there is no real way of secluding oneself away from these different cultures anymore. As was stated in class, by 2050, Caucasians will be the minority in America for the first time ever. The Internet and other media outlets allow for the observation of other cultures at any time of the day. Therefore, it is important we purvey the true nature of these people. How can we do that? It is obvious that people of diverse ethnicity, as well as women, need to be involved in the process of media production. Not only this, but based on merit (something everything should be based on), more people of these backgrounds should be considered and granted positions within the ranks of the decision makers. It will provide a broader perspective, and this doesn't mean it has to change the content. Maybe these other individuals will devise a new way of packaging the same message? Show other ways of going about delivering content in a more responsible manner that still generates capital and no one would take issue, I can guarantee that.


An anecdote comes to mind that I think sums up the natural progress we are making simply by losing places to run from people who are different. One of my professors was discussing race in a class, and he brought up his son. His son had a new friend named Kwame, and when he was dropping him off at high school, my professor said, "which one is Kwame, buddy?". His son looked at the group of kids standing together and said, "The one in the blue and yellow striped polo". It was a black guy. My professor relayed the difference in mindset from his generation to his sons. Whereas someone older would have said, "The black kid", his son pointed him out not by the color of his skin, but by his apparel. This is a clear example of not seeing race as a factor of differentiation. I find this to be more and more the case these days, barring poor influence from parental figures.


Heading into the media field, it is as simple as the rule I have been taught to live by since day one. Treat others as you would want to be treated. In this regard, that means using my abilities as a journalist to cover all people in same way, and judge everyone by the same criteria.

Hip-Hop Media Assignment

Hip-hop is a type of music, but also a cultural movement. Much like folk rock was a vehicle for the attitudes and contentions of another earlier generation, hip-hop has given a voice to a portion of society that, many times, feels disenfranchised. Yet, to pigeon hole this type of music as a solely niche related voice is myopic. Hip-hop can be scathing, fun-loving, ghetto, old-school, etc. The list goes on and on. The cultural element comes into play involving the heavier side of hip-hop. Many groups through the 80's (hip-hop began in the 70's) began to use their art form as a way to discuss social issues and perceived inadequacies amongst those living in close quarters. It is a multi-faceted, now firmly entrenched, form of expression within American culture. It is a part of the tapestry, for all colors and nationalities. It doesn't respect the bounds of country lines. There is rap in every country. It is far from a fad, as many speculated it was in its infancy (like disco), and it has become a powerful force in the pop-culture forum. Put simply: hip-hop is prevalent and powerful, and it still has the ability to do so while making you shake your ass. What began as expression due to a lack of representation has now become mainstream, and it is growing because of it, even with the cries that hip-hop has "sold out".

FIVE GROUPS I HAVE NOT LISTENED TO BEFORE (hard to find for the music nut I am):

1) Rick Ross - "Maybach Music 2"

2) STARSTRUKK - "3OH!3"

3) K'naan - "Wavin' Flag"

4) Asher Roth - "Lark On My Go-Kart"

5) Labcologne - "Fatality"

FIVE HIP-HOP VIDEOS I HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY SEEN (NOTE: these videos were seen on numerous TV channels and through the music service "Rhapsody", but linked to YouTube as a way of letting others view the images I am discussing):

1) Nas - "Hero"

The theme of this video seems to be that Nas, an outspoken member of the hip-hop community on numerous topics, is calling fr a "hero". From his positioning in the video, it very well may be him. Notice the images though. In a genre dominated by masculinity and violence, how is a man like Nas, who preaches change, helping the movement when he is perpetrating hip-hop stereotypes? Ski masks, dark me coming from dark alleys, bling bling, fast cars? There are themes in these videos that are predominant across the board (rare exceptions).

2) Del tha Funkee Homosapien - "Mistadobilina"

An early entry in the annuls of hip-hop, this song maintains a light and upbeat tone. Yet, when listening to the lyrics (and seeing the video), it seems Del is making a statement about the differences between him and this Mr. Dobilina, if you will. White men in suits acting like robots in office environments prevail in the video. A social statement that, once again, gets 'em up off da couch. Yo.

3) Common - "Universal Mind Control"

What would one expect from a stalwart in groundbreaking hip-hop? Common expands the genre. Pushes envelopes. Every time you hear something generic that sounds like everything else, go find someone like Common. He talks about important things. There aren't any big bootied hoes in this video. In these latter years of hip-hops existence, much like rock and roll, growth is inevitable. For all the Soulja Boys out there, there are a few of these guys that make listening to this music worthwhile.

4) Lil Jon - "Get Low"

Awful. Just awful. It's not even a good beat. The words are demeaning to not only females, but to any male with any form of cognisant thought. I love how the video is edited to not say, "Til the sweat drips off my balls", but they let the lyrics "Skeet Skeet Skeet" stay in there. That means to ejaculate. It was also humorous to watch 20-year-old girls walking around saying that phrase not even knowing what it meant. A truly enriching addition to any music catalogue. NOT. The video is like bad dental work (Lil Jon may know something about that).

5) 2 Pac - "I Ain't Mad At Cha"

After a terrible entry into the hip-hop genre, here is the master. Poet. Telling you a story of loss and love. Like any art, there has to be passion. It just isn't made like this anymore. It's so rare. He made hundreds of these tracks. The video is a narrative of a man's journey, finished in heaven, giving forgiveness to those he left behind. I don't see any asses shaking. It's more than that. More artists need to strive for this. Bottom line. I can even get my old white parents to give these songs nods of legitimization.

The influence of these voices, plus so many, many more, are numerous. Unfortunately, these influences have often been negative. The rap stigma is one dominated by violence and chauvinist attitudes. At this point in time, there are many who have grown past these stringent barriers and explored more deeply rooted human issues concerning our existence. Sadly, the majority are happy to make a buck and talk about alcohol, sex, and "skeeting" on people. Words like "trines" (derogatory term for women) and "crunk" (getting wild) have become a part of all races and socioeconomic groups' vernaculars. This type of music is mainstream. It angers some traditionalists who pine for the good old days, but like anything that draws publicity, for whatever reason, it gains notoriety. It loses its novel status. Just look at advertising. Companies are trying to move a product, and they aren't opposed to using popular music to do so. Vitamin Water, Ciroc Vodka, Castrol Motor Oil, Old Spice and numerous others have all used hip-hop music and figures to move their products. It is an accepted form of expression. It will be used as such.

The state of hip-hop is...what it is. It is a strong condition, filled with multiple geniuses and hacks alike, just as in any genre. Some have something important to say, others simply want to continue turning out the same old stereotypical rap crap. Like with anything, the burden is on the listener to seek out material of worth. Some don't have the capacity for it, and want simple tunes with simple themes. Others grasp for complex creations that make them think and question aspects of their lives and surroundings. Hip-hop has both. Just like rock. Just like country. Just like all forms of music. The idea that this is still a cultural movement is moot to me. It's not. Too many years have passed. That would be like me saying Buffalo Springfield still led a cultural movement. Nope. Hip-hop has evolved. And transgressed. But it's amazing how new it can be when it's done right.

Who decides what news is?

There's always someone behind a story. Regardless of how hard one tries, it is impossible for anyone to totally remove them self from a report and make it totally objective. It is easier to more closely reach this impossibility when a subject is vanilla, but on subjects such as war, which Moyer confronts in his essay, it becomes exceedingly difficult. In the video, Moyer does not make a direct statement that the Iraq War is like the previous conflict in Vietnam, but he juxtaposes the two and the American public's reactions to both. He is trying to make a correlation. In my opinion, there has been less public outrage and demonstration concerning the Iraq War because of the times. During the Vietnam years, the fabric of our country was changing. There were movements on many fronts. This stimulated a sub-culture of "radicals" that took to the streets, confronting authority and acting out on their perceived trampled rights. As a country, we have settled in, it seems. As many changes have been made, we hit the 80's and 90's and put the proverbial car on cruise control. Many people simply got comfortable, and members of my generation were raised in a climate that has created a general sense of malaise towards any sort of cause. It took the candidacy of a black man to get us to vote. We needed a reason to roll out and exercise our most basic democratic right. Though I find the line drawn between Iraq and Vietnam to be quite thin indeed, I believe sheer laziness to be the causation for less public displays of opposition. People got comfy, and raised their kids that way.

Now, whether the media covers what does occur is another issue. The news is owned by someone. Its job is to report truth, but can it do this completely if a story conflicts with the ownerships interests? In the case of the Iraq War, the coverage of the push towards Baghdad was so rah-rah you'd have thought you were watching the liberation of Paris circa 1944. Why was no one discussing the potential pratfalls of this conflict? Even as someone who supported the war, I would have welcomed more opposing views. An important role of the media is not only to accurately report information, but to discuss its merits and downsides (commentary). One of the negatives of 9/11 was its affect on the media. Just like the public, the media jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and lost view of its duties. How can this be avoided? What caused it? I do not think the ownership of many of our major media outlets helped. One example is GE. They manufacture weapons for the government, but they also own NBC. Does this not seem like a slight conflict of interest? Would their coverage of the war change because of this? Interesting points to discuss.

In fact, there are only six entities that own all of our news. Does this seem right? All seem to be dominated by the presence of white males. Is this indicative of our countries racial composition? Not at all. Is it fair? Absolutely. No one has done anything wrong to gain these positions. They have played the game and become successful. Right or wrong do not come into this discussion. Is this a good thing? That can be broken down. The simple answer: NO. In a country where the majority/minority coin will be flipped by 2050, it seems that the news is still very centralized on only certain people and places. Though certain issues are not important to everyone, they are important to someone. Are we alienating people by not acknowledging them? I personally think stories on minority issues concern me just as much as anything else. If America is a quilt, they're a chunk and every bit as important as I am. Coverage of these different cultures would illuminate their struggles and successes, but most importantly, it would promote understanding. One of the lesser focused upon aspects of the media is to educate. This is a key area where they could certainly do some good.

Somewhat in the same vein, you have how the media portrayed the Civil Rights Movement. Even though they shot many of the stories from the point of view of the white law enforcement, and no doubt showed their bias in doing so, the images coming through people's TV screens did all the talking needed for many to understand the brutality of the struggle for equality. Seeing with their own eyes the fire hoses spraying women and children, and dogs viciously attacking people simply standing in the street helped many make up their minds around the country. It really did not matter what the broadcaster said, or the tone of the report. Images hold great power, and those were some of the most powerful.

It is time to use the media as a tool to promote knowledge of all the types of people we have in our country, and the place to start are the controlling interests. This is one of the biggest issues facing the media today. Who is pulling the strings?

Another way to look at it...

Here's another perspective on White Privilege. It's damn funny. If you're a minority, just wait for what he says about the future. Possible outcome.

This is socially tinted commentary carried via humor that says roughly the same thing that Tim Wise did.

"If you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole". Basically states that we have an advantage, and if we don't admit it, we're being ridiculous.

Like Prior, Chappelle, or Rock, this guy is every bit as illuminating. A distinct voice.

Funniest man alive...

Louis C.K.

We're all spoiled. Everyone's privileged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jETv3NURwLc

"New York to L.A. in five hours. That used to take 30 years". Know what this reminds me of? Anyone play "Oregon Trail" back in school? One of my kids always died of Typhoid.

The guy just made me laugh more in 4 minutes and 12 seconds than Dane Cook has in his entire career.

The government should subsidize his comedy. He should be in the stimulus package. It's more important than Pelosi's pet mice. What a joke. 30 million?

Louis makes me wonder though:

Do you think when a member of the "greatest generation's" car broke down trying to get their kids to school, an old timer born a couple decades after the Civil War would pop out of nowhere and say, "Not fast enough for ya? You're being drawn by a horseless carriage for crimminy sakes! Spoiled, the lot of ya!"?

Most probably. Things are speedier, but it's all relative.

"When you ran out of money, you said, 'I can't do any more things now'..."

I need to pay heed to that.